Two experiments tested whether common-bond groups (attachment based on interpersonal bonds between the members) and common-identity groups (attachment based on attraction to the group as a whole; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994) make different fairness judgments. Overall, the use of the equality heuristic (Messick, 1993) was expected. Moreover, based on social identity theory, we predicted that members of common-bond groups show an egocentric bias, whereas members of common-identity groups forgo their individual goals for the group goal. In both experiments, positive and negative outcomes were distributed. Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of involvement, Experiment 2 varied responsibility for the outcome. Results of both studies supported the hypothesis, thus emphasizing the importance of the distinction between common-bond and common-identity groups.
Aikawa, A. (1981). Individual vs. group decisions on reward allocation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 52, 113-119.
2.
Aron, A. , Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
3.
Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance on choice on distribution rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402-408.
4.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (1982). The effects of cohesiveness on distributive justice. Journal of Psychology, 110, 267-273.
5.
Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 131-144.
6.
Campbell, W. K. , Sedikides, C., Reeder, G. D., & Elliott, A. J. (2000). Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 229-239.
7.
Chen, X. (1999). Work team cooperation: The effects of structural and motivational changes. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 181-192). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
8.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (1996). Gain-loss-frame in outcome-interdependence: Does it influence equality or equity considerations?European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 315-324.
9.
De Graaf, D. , & van Yperen, N. W. (2000). Rechtvaardigheid in organisaties: Gelijkheid of billijkheid? [Justice in organizations: Equality or equity?]. Paper presented at the ASPO-congress, 30 November-1 December 2000, Eindhoven.
10.
Griffith, W. I. (1989). The allocation of negative outcomes. Advances in Group Processes, 6, 107-137.
11.
Harris, R. J. (1980). Equity judgments in hypothetical, four-person partnerships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 96-115.
12.
Higgins, E. T. , & May, D. (2001). Individual self-regulatory functions. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.) Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 47-67). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
13.
Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: ‘Equity’ and ‘Parity’ among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 539-550.
14.
Leventhal, G. S. , & Anderson, D. (1970). Self-interest and the maintenance of equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 57-62.
15.
Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 11-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Messick, D. M. , & Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80, 311-323.
17.
Messick, D. M. , & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418-434.
18.
Musch, J. , & Reips, U.-D. (2000). The brief history of web experimenting: A survey. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 61-88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19.
Ohtsubo, Y. , & Kameda, T. (1998). The function of equality heuristic in distributive bargaining: Negotiated allocation of costs and benefits in a demand revelation context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 90-108.
20.
O’Malley, M. N. , & Becker, L. A. (1984). Removing the egocentric bias: The relevance of distress cues to evaluation of fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 235-242.
21.
Postmes, T. , & Spears, R. (2000). Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. common identity groups. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups (pp. 63-77). Amsterdam: KNAW.
22.
Prentice, D. A. , Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484-493.
23.
Roch, S. G. , Lane, J. A. S., Samuelson, C. D., Allison, S. T., & Dent, J. L. (2000). Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: A two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 185-212.
24.
Sassenberg, K. (in press). Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.
25.
Sassenberg, K. , Kessler, T., & Mummendey, M. (2001). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as approach and avoidance. Paper submitted for publication.
26.
Schubert, T. , & Otten, S. (in press). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity.
27.
Simon, B. , & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.
28.
Smith, E. R. (2001). Overlapping mental representations of self and group: Evidence and implications. Paper presented at the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology, Sydney, March.
29.
Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
30.
Thompson, L. L. , & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176-197.
31.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 177-236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1998). Mode of accomplishing positive and negative outcomes: Its effect on fairness evaluations. Social Justice Research, 11, 423-441.
33.
Törnblom, K. Y. , & Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249-261.
34.
Törnblom, K. Y. , & Jonsson, D. R. (1987). Distribution vs. retribution: The perceived justice of the contribution and equality principles for cooperative and competitive relationships. Acta Sociologica, 30, 25-52.
35.
Tropp, L. R. , & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585-600.
36.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
37.
Van Dijk, E. , Engelen, M., Van Leeuwen, E., Monden, L., & Sluijter, E. (1999). Distributive justice and the allocation of costs, losses and profits. Social Justice Research, 12, 5-18.
38.
Wenzel, M. (1997). Soziale Kategorisierungen im Bereich distributiver Gerechtigkeit. [Social cateogorizations in the realm of distributive justice]. Münster: Waxmann.
39.
Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justice motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157-176.
